Rowan Williams on Advent

The Story of Stuff

Annie Leonard has some interesting and revealing information regarding our addiction to consumption. This is a teaser clip. You can find the entire video by clicking here.

Ben Witherington ~ On Knowing God

Ben Witherington has a good post on the limitations of our ability to exhaustively know God. This is worth a few minutes to read...and hours to contemplate.

Click here.


.

Stand Up - Eric Bryant

The following video is a recording of Eric Bryant from Mosaic Church doing a stand up comedy set. I thought he had some funny stuff. Enjoy! Happy Thanksgiving!!

George Winston - "Thanksgiving"

The following video contain some beautiful images that accompany George Winston's song "Thanksgiving." I hope you enjoy!

The 'Prop 8 ' Fallout

After the vote in favor of Prop 8 in Califorina that would limit marriage to one man and one woman, protests and rallies have been held to try to gain support to overturn the vote of the people. This news video was recently released showing the treatment of an older woman who was in support of Prop 8 by some supports of gay marriage. Notice the final comment by the news anchor that both sides were showing 'hate.' Where is the 'hate' demonstrated by the elderly woman?

Did God Choose Barak Obama?

It has just been 2 days now since our country went to the polls to vote for our next president. As we all know, Sen. Barak Obama was the clear choice of the majority of the voting citizens. But already, I am hearing comments like this from a growing number of Christians: "God is sovereign, so he can fix this." This is a belief about God that I certainly agree with. No plan of his can be thwarted, we are told in Job 42:2.

But behind this statement about God's sovereignty I am finding an interesting contradition. What is being expressed is that we messed the vote up, so God in his sovereignty will have to override our choice. But let me ask this question, what if God in his sovereignty chose Barak Obama to be our next president? I'm not sure that this question has even crossed our minds. If this were the case, then what would our responsibilities be as Christians toward our next president?

A Thousand Questions

On Saturday I was attending a meeting where this video was used. It is titled "A Thousand Questions." What do you think?

Trinitarian Subordinationism Debate at TEDS

I'm glad to see that TEDS hosted this debate/discussion regarding the upswing in belief in Trinitarian Subordinationism. This view of the relation of the Trinity is the primary theological underpinning for the continued subordination of women in the Church. I don't stake my claim to either McCall or Yandell - I've unfortunately not heard of either. But I do find this doctrinal formulation pervasive in the Reformed circles of the Church. I have even been on the receiving end of the 'heretic' label over this discussion. The following article was posted at www.christianitytoday.com. Let me know what you think!


Anathemas All Around
Charges of heresy underscore stakes of debate over Trinity.
Collin Hansen posted 10/10/2008 10:47AM

Sabellianism. Arianism. Biblical authority vs. Greek philosophy. Four evangelical scholars delivered charges and counter-charges over the Trinity during an October 9 debate before about 450 people at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS). The seminary's Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding hosted a four-man debate over the question: Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the persons of the Godhead?

Questions over the Trinity involve complex metaphysical matters and careful interpretation of biblical texts. Though the Trinity is undeniably crucial to Christianity's unique religious identity, church members do not always see how the doctrine relates to faith and practice. Yet the early church labored feverishly over the doctrine for centuries, with orthodoxy itself at stake in councils at Nicaea, Chalcedon, and elsewhere. Today, debates over whether the Son submits eternally to the Father have been wrapped up with questions of authority and submission between men and women, resulting in a flurry of scholarly exchange. Gender roles did not emerge as a factor Thursday night, but that did not discourage vigorous, high-stakes debate.

Former TEDS systematic theology professors Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware returned to the suburban Chicago seminary and argued the affirmative: relations of authority and submission do indeed exist among the persons of the Godhead. They pointed to a number of biblical texts that show that while the Son dwelt among us, he submitted to his heavenly Father. This was not the point of disagreement, however, so Grudem cited additional passages, arguing that they suggest the Son has submitted from eternity past and will submit for eternity future. He turned to Ephesians 1:3-5, Romans 8:29, and John 1:14 to argue: "The role of planning, purposing, predestining — the entire history of salvation — belongs to the Father, according to Scripture. There is no hint of any such authority for the Son with respect to the Father."

John 3:16 ("God gave his only Son") reinforces this view, Grudem said. "If one sends and the other is sent, then one commands and the other obeys," said the Phoenix Seminary professor. "Yes, the Son represents the Father, but to be sent by the Father is also to be subject to the Father's authority." Grudem explained that the very terms for Father and Son would have implied authority and submission in the biblical world. Ware, currently a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, followed Grudem and marshaled quotes from Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and numerous other theologians to support their case.

Tom McCall, a current TEDS systematic theology professor, teamed up with Keith Yandell, philosophy professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, to offer a different position. "There are no good reasons for orthodox Christians to hold to the position advocated by Drs. Ware and Grudem," McCall began, " and there are very good reasons for orthodox Christians to reject their account." He explained that both sides uphold biblical authority, both sides employ philosophical categories for understanding the Bible, and both sides can quote Bible verses. The key is which side can interpret Scripture correctly.

McCall took issue with a statement from Grudem's book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth in which he argues, "If the Father also submitted to the authority of the Son, it would destroy the Trinity, because there would be no Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but only Person A, Person A, and Person A." That view would be Sabellianism, also known as modalism — the heretical view that the one God appears to humans in three modes, not three distinct persons. Defending himself against possible charges of heresy, McCall said we may affirm that there are distinctions within the Godhead even if we don't know what they are.

McCall also challenged Grudem and Ware's interpretation of passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:28, which they believe teach the Son's eternal subordination. Here Paul states, "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." McCall pointed out that Paul does not explain how long this subordination will last. Certainly we may not conclude from this verse, McCall argued, that Christ's subordination is "timelessly eternal or backwardly everlasting." More importantly, McCall said, "It only tells us of what is and will be — it does not tell us what must be!"

Yandell backed McCall's argument with a series of philosophical proofs. He contended that Ware and Grudem held doctrine that cannot be argued exegetically from any biblical text. He worked toward a climax that argued Ware and Grudem's view of subordination actually undermines the Trinity with a form of Arian heresy, though he did not employ that loaded term. The Arians, defeated by Athanasius at Nicaea in the fourth century, believed that Jesus was created a little lower than the Father. In Ware and Grudem's view, Yandell said, "The Son has as an essential property being subordinate to the Father and of course the Father lacks that property. So the Father has an essential property — a property that is part of the Father's nature — that the Son does not have as part of the Son's nature, and the Son has an essential property — a property that is part of the Son's nature — that the Father does not have as part of the Father's nature. This entails that the Father and the Son do not share the same nature after all."

Both sides employed technical, nuanced arguments derived from Scripture with help from philosophy. Subsequent responses between the two sides brought greater clarity to the perspectives that separate them. Ware and Grudem argued that in the economic Trinity of the Bible (the three persons as seen in the outworking of the "economy" of salvation) we see the relations between the three as they always have been and will be. But Yandell countered that what sounds biblical from Ware and Grudem actually comes through a filter of Greek philosophy that obscures the meaning of the Incarnation and Pentecost.

Yet the crowd, which filled the TEDS chapel nearly to capacity, hung on the scholars' words for two and a half hours. Yandell shared that his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin would regard this debate as pointless, like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. So would many evangelicals, I suspect. But as the evening progressed, the intensity of discussion reminded us why the early church fought with such prolonged fervor over the Trinity. What could be more exciting and more important than sharpening each other's understanding of the nature of God?

Collin Hansen is a CT editor at large and author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists.

Moving to the RCC or EO?

Scot McKnight posted an interesting response to a letter he received inquiring as to why he has not left evangelicalism in favor or the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. It's worth the read. Click here.

Story Still Reigns

Tonight my boys and I watched the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe once again. They never get tired of it, especially the battle scenes into which they places themselves as Peter and Edward. My oldest even disappeared at one point in the movied only to return from his room with a sword. The power of the story reigns over their imaginations and draws them into the world of Aslan. As the movied started tonight I told my oldest son that the author, C.S. Lewis, intended us to see Jesus in the Aslan character. And you know what, he got it!

Even with the wonderful progress that we have experienced with the rise of the scientific age, story still reigns. The scientific theory can't hold a candle to the imagination stirring power of a good story. Lewis carefully crafted the Chronicles of Narnia during the late 1940s in Great Britian. A scholar and student of religion, one of Lewis' great accomplishments was story.

This shouldn't be a surprise to us, that story still reigns. In the late 1600s a man by the name of John Bunyan offered us another story intended to communicate the path of following Jesus. It was titled The Pilgrim's Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come. The story that unfolds on these masterfully written pages have drawn our minds into a journey that is other worldly, and yet oddly real. As we turn the pages we also become pilgrims travelling along on a journey that leads to our freedom. The power of story is nothing new, even though it still catches us by surprise.

This is what good stories do; they capture us, preoccupy our minds, and motivate us to action. We walk away from our encounter much like my sons ready to slay the White Witch and become kings in their own right. This isn't because I told them that they must become kings, or that they must take up their swords and go to battle. No, instead they were inspired by the power of a story that filled their hearts and minds with visions of things once thought impossible. One day my sons will become kings, although tonight they sleep as princes. How do I know? Because I read a story as well that filled my heart with a vision of my two boys ruling and reigning with the King. Story still reigns...the Story still reigns.

Peeking Through the Cracks at Lambeth

I just read Bishop Wright's letter to the Durham Diocese at the mid point in the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion. You can find it here.

As I peek through the cracks of the Lambeth conference I find bits and pieces of good ideas that might apply to the broader context in which I minister. First, Bishop Wright's description of the Indaba groups sounds like a wonderful way to build community among widely diverse particpants, and would be helpful in focusing the entire conference on Scripture. This might serve well the broader church context in which I seek to minister when addressing disputed matters of doctrine or practice. The tone might result as more collegial rather than diving straight into controvesy and debate.

Second, I found the diversity of views that are being heard and considered to be a healthy and loving way to work through what has long been anticipated to be a difficult if not contentious process. Not all can have their way, but as I peek through the cracks it appears to me that there has been an intentional process developed by Archbishop Rowan Williams to listen and discern in community what the Spirit is saying to this Anglican Communion.

I don't know about you, but this is fascinating stuff to me!

A Question of Leadership

Okay, so I admit it. I am fascinated by the on going war within the international Anglican Communion. I do not watch with the least bit of pleasure, as some are in the habit of doing, but with a morbid fascination with how a group of professing Christians can destroy the institutions that they inherited by fighting for their convictions. Conservative and liberal sides appear from this side of the pond to be engaging in this on going war with the least bit of concern for a life of love in community. Not that they are the unique is this way of fighting for "godliness." I have seen this in the church that I have been a part of as well. So what possesses a group of people to eat there spiritual young in order to have their way in the present?

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is attempting to lead the Communion into a place of unity at the upcoming Lambeth Conference. He has been thoroughly disparaged by both extremes in this ecclesial war on a number of issues during his tenure. Most importantly is the challenge to his quality and style of leadership, which some charge is obviously lacking in its effectiveness.

Alister McGrath was quoted as saying, "Rowan has a very high view of unity and has worked hard, but it is not going to be enough. It is virtually impossible to achieve consensus and it is very difficult to exercise leadership in that context. Leadership is about more than finding consensus - you also have to map out the route that you believe to be right." (You can read the Guardian article here.)

So, is all of this mayhem in the Anglican Communion a question of leadership? Is McGrath correct that leadership is more than finding consensus - which will most likely never going to be attained at the Lambeth Conference or any other gathering on issues of homosexuality, women bishops, and the break within the Episcopal Church USA. What happens when a leader maps out a route that they believe to be correct and the Communion/Church/Organization doesn't follow along in mass? Are they still a good leader?

Leadership is a touchy subject. Everyone wants to be their own leader, or in other words not have to take direction from someone else. Many leaders seem to be interested in maintaining and protecting their own power. And others stand back and wonder what the point of all of this is about in the first place. Is it possible for a group of Christians / Churches / Denomination to select a good leader, and then allow that person to have the authority and should come with the responsibility? And yet, can that group be able to hold their leaders accountable and still be good followers? Lots of questions...lots of sadness in the state of the Church!

House Church and the Anti-Institutional Bias

I have been thinking about the "house church" movement, and the ways in which this style of doing church might be an improvement in a number of areas over our current building-oriented models. As a pastor of a building-oriented church, I wonder at the amount of money that is spent to maintain a building that is so underused on a daily basis. Our sancutary where we meet on Sunday mornings for worship is used on average for about 1 1/2 hours each week. Is that really a good use of space? The arguments are strong on both sides. One answer would be to find ways to put the building to use more frequently - either with church run programming and/or inviting community organizations to use the space for meetings, training events, etc.

The other response is what is largely found in Viola and Barna's new book Pagan Christianity. The answer that they give to this dilemma is essentially to sell the building in favor of the house-church movement, which they argue is the only biblical model. This is a challenge that I hear regularly from anti-institutional Christians who view the organized church to be a waste of money and missing the point. The anti-institutional rhetoric typically is accompanied by a call to do away with leadership structures because they too are deemed unbiblical. In my experience, these arguments usually come from people who desire themselves to be in charge, or at least be able to do/say/teach whatever they want. They have some good points, some of which I've mentioned already - money spent on buildings rather than ministry, building worship, and domineering church leadership.

As I've read and listened to those either aspiring to start a house church or have been a part of one, I hear just as many problems with these models as the 'institutional church.' Every group needs some kind of structure and mutually agreed upon ways of relating and functioning together. Every group will have various gifts and functions emerge within the fellowship of believers. And every group - house church and institutional church - can become ingrown, self-focused, and generally dysfuntional.

Viola and Barna attempt to lay a foundation for the primacy of the house-church / anti-institutional church philosophy in their book Pagan Christianity. But their arguments fall short according to Dr. Ben Witherington. You can read his review of the book here.

So, what is the best model for "church" as followers of Jesus in an increasingly global context? And is it possible to have this conversation with the incessant bickering and finger pointing and is clearly disconnected from historical reality? I hope so!

Including the Exclusivists

For some time now I have been wrestling with the challenge of including exclusivists into the life of our church. I want our church to be a community that is a 'big tent,' a place where people can come and wrestle with God in the context of authentic and loving relationships. I want our gathering to be a safe place to ask questions, doubt, think, and pray; all the while pressing deeper into relationship with God. But saying that, I am aware that I am also demarcating boundaries that will at some point create a place where a person walks out from under the shade of the tent. By saying that the context should be "authentic and loving" I am drawing a boundary around artifical and caustic - callusoused and hurtful - spiritually arrogant and self-aggrandizing. And by describing the kind of community that I desire to shape as "a safe place to ask questions, doubt, think, and pray," I am drawing a boundary around the kinds of relating that are preachy, condescending, and unable to live lovingly together with others who disagree.

Exclusivists, whatever their position might be, find this kind of community repulsive. They want eveyrone to agree with their position/ doctrine/ interpretation; and their way of relating with others is typically focused on convincing and pursuading rather than encouraging, supporting, and walking in love. And when exclusivists find themselves walking out from under the shade of the big tent they tend to charge the tentminders as being divisive and narrowminded. Hence, trying to make the one time 'big tent' promoter into the one excluding the exclusivist.

The rub for me is how to be able to continue to offer inclusion in the 'big tent' to the exclusivist, and yet not allow the exclusivist to downsize the tent to allow only those who agree with them. Any thoughts?

Dobson vs. Obama

The web is a buzz with Dr. James Dobson's, of Focus on the Family, comments about Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama's 2006 speech. Here is CNN's report from yesterday, June 24, 2008.

In response to his critique of Obama's speech, a new website has been developed at http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/. Apparently it was spearheaded by the now well known Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell who most recently officiated at the wedding of President Bush's daughter Jennah.

It is possible that Dr. Dobson is correct in his critique of Sen. Obama's interpretation of the Bible. It is possible. It is also possible that Dr. Dobson is incorrect in his critique. (Scot McKnight shared his perspective on Dobson's critique here.) I'm not sure that what is at issue, really, is whether Dobson or Obama is correct; instead what troubles me is the tone and approach to the debate. I support the debate. I think Dobson has every right to challenge Obama or McCain or me on whatever issue he wants - as an American and as a Christian. But the way in which Dobson, Obama or myself approach the debate often becomes the point for the larger society. By now, I would think that Dobson would know this and seek to communicate in a more thoughtful and loving way - as an American and as a Christian.

Here's a thought from the Apostle Paul who was no stranger to debate. Ephesians 4:29-32 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

"Almost Flew" Claymation Video

This one is just for fun. My friend Jeff Caylor is a great singer/songwriter from Colorado. He just created this claymation video for one of his songs, "Almost Flew." Enjoy!

Evangelical Manifesto

In recent days the Evangelical Manifesto has begun to be circulated around the Internet. This is the link to the .pdf document.

Also, Scot McKnight added a few comments on his blog.

What you guys think?

Bono at the Prayer Breakfast in 2006

The following is the 27-minute speech that was given by Bono at the National Day of Prayer breakfast in 2006. As you watch this video let me encourage you NOT to look for what you disagree with Bono on, but allow your heart to be moved by the Words of God that come from his mouth. What does this mean for us as the Church, as a nation, as a family?

Bishop Tom and the Anglican Dilemma

On April 12th N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Anglican Communion, gave a lecture to the gathered conferees at the Fulcrum Conference Islington. His lecture was titled "Conflict and Covenant in the Bible." Even if you have not been following the unfolding conflict within the Anglican Communion, this lecture is worth the read!

How Ought the Bible be Used?

This post was initiated by _REV_ in a previous post.
I am quoting his question on this topic for our dicussion.

"Further, I still need clarification in my mind in terms of "how the Bible is used." Is appealing to the Bible the same as appealing to a math book? A phone book? An almanac? A collection of Emerson? What sort of "authority" is the Bible? And if Christian denominations cannot agree, on what basis then CAN we base our evidence to be sifted, discussed, debated???"

A Life That Teaches

In the following video, John Ortberg and Richard Foster discuss the importance of living what we teach. How I live in relationship with others will do more to shape them than my words do, even though my words are also important. This dynamic is true as a pastor, but not just as a pastor. It is true as a father, a husband, and a friend. The critique of Christians being hypocrites is simply the identification that our lives do not match our words. So, as you watch this video, ask yourself - will those around me be shaped by my actions in the way of Jesus?

Click the following link to watch the video.

Heresy: Who's to Say?

In 2 Peter 2:1-3 we read, "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping."

I have been thinking recently about the issue of heresy or false teaching in the Church. As a pastor who provides teaching regularly, I am keenly aware of the added accountability that comes with the responsibility of teaching others how to live as followers of Jesus. James' warning (3:1) that "not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" comes to my mind often as I study and prepare for our Sunday gatherings. I do not want to be guilty of teaching falsely how to live as a follower of Jesus, nor do I want to model poorly what that might look like applied in my real life.

But the question that has been rolling around in my mind as of late has to do with the declaration of heresy. I have been both the recipient of and a participant in the declaration of heresy in the past. With a little study of historical theology, one should be able to correctly identify current manifestations of the false teachings that the Church faced in past generations. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity has been a foundational teaching to the Christian faith since the very first Christians. So when a person desires to teach non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian theology, one should be able to identify a problem. And as a pastor, my understanding of my role in the local church is to protect the congregation from this kind of teaching and as appropriate teach the church about such views and why they are outside of the foundational teachings of Scripture and the Church.

But what happens when the teaching is outside of the historically discerned heresies? Who gets to decide what is false teaching and what isn't? I suppose if I were a part of the Orthodox or Catholic churches which have a structure to deal with these teachings, I could look to those in authority for guidance. But being a part of a congregationally oriented Protestant church which has no apparatus for discerning and declaring teaching to be false outside of our Statement of Faith, I am left on my own. I can also turn to other pastors for input, but what I have found is that in many issues there is not a consensus of opinion. What I find to be biblical and helpful, others declare as heresy; and what I view as a poor understanding of the teaching of Scripture, others hold to with a devout fervor.

I am left, then, to do my best to listen to the voice of the Spirit as I read and study Scripture, and as I relate to those in my local church and beyond who want to be teachers. But I continue to have a sense that our independent approach to life and faith is leaving many open to being unfairly labeled as heretics on the one hand, and on the other leaving the Church open to false teaching. Heresy: Who's to Say?

Humingbirds and the Jesus Creed

The following link is to a short article written by Scot McKnight about the connection between relationship and evangelism. Check it out!

Click Here for the Article

The Power of Submission

I recently completed a series of messages titled "The Power of Submission." This video of Father and Son (Dick & Rick Hoyt) captures well the essence of how we are to live in submission to the needs of the other.

A Daily Conversion

One summer sunday in 1979, I asked my father how to 'get saved.' At a very old 5 years of age, I had heard our pastor talk abou heaven and hell a number of times. I was quite sure I didn't want to end up in hell if I were to die in my sleep or by falling off my tricycle. Getting saved and avoiding hell is a big deal when you are 5 years old. Really it's a big deal at any age.

I was quite a shy kid, so after my dad explained once again what it means to get saved, and how to do it, I went into the downstairs bathroom in our little townhouse and knelt at the toilet. Yes, you read correctly. I am living proof that God can save a person on the toilet!

In the tradition that I grew up in, there was great emphasis put on one's historic conversion - the date and time that a person prayed the sinner's prayer and got saved. Our historic conversion was a source of great comfort when the waves of doubt and guilt began to hold sway over our hearts. We could look back and remember the time when we were converted and then allow the peace to come again to our troubled and fearful souls.

Recently I had the opportunity to hear Gordom MacDonald speak at a conference. In his address he spoke about the need to move away from a 'historical conversion' to a 'daily conversion.' He said that we need to continually update our conversion story at the foot of the cross. Too many of us, he argued, rely upon a time in days gone by to define our present faith. We fail to continue to be converted in the many places of our lives that still hold on to the vestiges of an unconverted heart.

I agree with MacDonald. While I certainly value that summer day in 1979 when I took my first steps in choosing to become a follower of Jesus, that solitary day does not define my life of faith in Jesus. Each day I need to be converted anew - brought to life with the rising of the Son on my life. My story is still being written, day by day, conversion by conversion.